血まみれ剣術師 wrote:I'm not really sure why you even posted this. There's something on the side called "PM (Private Message)" that you could have used. Please refrain from posting way off topic posts about what someone [ I ] did, didn't do... whatever... I'm in my twenties by the way.

It's a fair matter of common knowledge that Mike hates PMs. But even that withstanding, I saw nothing wrong with his post, and had actually noticed the same thing myself.I didn't think it was necessarily off-topic at all, more a comment on the state of comments.

There's something on the side called "PM (Private Message)" that you could have used.

In almost all cases I loathe, detest, and despise private messages. There are exceptions; but they are few. When I have something to say, I say it right out in public and put my name on it.

Please refrain from posting way off topic posts about what someone [ I ] did, didn't do... whatever...

Thank you for phrasing that as a polite request.

I'm in my twenties by the way. :lol:

You grew up in the era of "anger management", "conflict resolution", "political correctness", and kids getting "time-outs". That stuff wasn't around yet when I was a kid, nor when I left the U.S., and I have lived my life in a world without it. That probably explains both your tendency to equivocate (items #2 and #3 above) and why I was so quick to spot it. People surrounded by it probably don't notice it; to me it stood out like a sore thumb.

I actually had to go look up the definition for "equivocation" and increase my vocabulary. To be honest, I'm thankful I did. Equivocation happens to be a habit of mine I have and just didn't know the name for.

But anyways, I don't actually see what part of the post that was originally quoted was considered equivocation. I don't really see anything misleading about it. It just seems to make the point that wikipedia isn't a source that should highly trusted.

Dehitay wrote:I actually had to go look up the definition for "equivocation" and increase my vocabulary. To be honest, I'm thankful I did. Equivocation happens to be a habit of mine I have and just didn't know the name for.

But anyways, I don't actually see what part of the post that was originally quoted was considered equivocation. I don't really see anything misleading about it. It just seems to make the point that wikipedia isn't a source that should highly trusted.

He was talking about 血まみれ剣術師 , and saying that he was most likely going to equivocate on his next post. It had nothing to do with the original post of this topic.